News

05.15.17 - Count On Coal

Count On Coal

The “Good” Steroids

The International Olympic Committee is reviewing the legitimacy of literally hundreds of medals awarded to athletes who are suspected of having used banned substances. When the medalists are drugged, the game is rigged and the competition doomed.

So, keep this in mind when you read about the growth in wind (5.6 percent of generation) and solar power (0.1 percent): renewable fuels subsidies are the functional equivalent of steroids for athletes. As Dynergy’s CEO puts it, “subsidies are the new war on coal.”

Tax credits allow wind and solar companies to juice the market, mostly by enticing affluent homeowners to install rooftop panels and opt for wind energy. The largest subsidies – more than $6 billion annually – help wind developers deliver power to where the wind doesn’t blow. That’s a lot of cash for only 5,140 jobs [BLS QCEW] that are keeping the blades spinning. [EIA “Direct Federal Financial Interventions and Subsidies”]

Growth in green power isn’t the problem; it’s how and for whom it is growing. Massive government intervention mocks the claim by NGOs that this is organic growth arising from a nation clamoring for costlier clean energy. When a friendly government lowers your operating costs with tax breaks, as it simultaneously raises your competitors’ costs with regulations — all the while shielding your customers with “net metering” from paying for the grid they use – it’s fake news to announce this growth as real, much less revolutionary. It’s easy to get pricing power if you have enough political power.

Remove the subsidies for rooftop solar panels and see if consumers hold up the roof for the solar industry. Installers will have fewer customers, now can domestic panel manufacturers compete with the China price.

The other problem from subsidized growth should concern social justice advocates. From turbines to solar panels, the green subsidy boom is for the yoga mat set. Nothing wrong with yoga. The point is rather that the bottom 50 percent of Americans with only 1 percent of the nation’s wealth have little or no taxable income to write off. Those who do are often renters with no incentive to upgrade. And the 50 percent of Americans who now describe themselves as “lower class” have more basic needs than to be “green.”

Despite this inequity, the obvious difference between steroids for athletes and subsidies for renewable fuels is that the latter aren’t banned. Far from it. Some in Congress view green subsidies as necessary sacrifices that taxpayers must make to help wind and solar companies win the race for power market domination while helping affluent consumers indulge their green vanity.

What’s not to like?

02.01.17 - The Club on the Head of American Workers

February 1, 2017

The Club on the Head of American Workers

Today in Congress, the Sierra Club will twice be reminded of former President Obama’s boast: that “elections have consequences.” The Environment and Public Works Committee will endorse Mr. Pruitt’s nomination as EPA administrator. The climate lobby that owned EPA for the last eight years now frets that Caligula has just captured the convent. The many more punished by EPA’s regulations will welcome Pruitt as savior.

Also, today the House will approve a resolution of disapproval voiding the so-called Stream Protection Rule. An oxymoron right up there with airline cuisine and military music, the stream rule will soon get the same treatment in the Senate.

How did this happen? Last week the Sierra Club provided one answer. It announced a new goal to destroy 65,000 jobs.

To the red-carpet supporters, billionaire philanthropists and trust fund intellectuals who cheer the club’s ambition to shut down another 28 gigawatts of coal-based generation, the jobs impact will be lost in translation. It won’t be lost on voters.

The club’s 28 GW target roughly equates to 90 million tons of lost coal production, which translates into job losses of 10,000 direct coal mine workers (Mine Safety and Health Administration) and 9,000 direct coal plant workers (DOE “Energy and Employment Report”). Add to this toll the standard 3.6 multiplier for indirect job losses derived from MSHA data – conservative as it omits some categories – and the club’s goal will kill another 46,000 jobs.

This brings the Sierra Club’s total tribute to America workers to 65,000 lost jobs.

BLS statistics show fossil energy jobs of the kind lost here paid an annual average of $111,300 in 2015.

This explains why the Obama administration’s single-minded devotion to the environmental left was costly for the president’s supporters. Reducing carbon emissions and coal production reduced economic prospects for tens of thousands of men and women. In November, they turned on their tormentors and the candidates that had turned against them.

To woo them back, the governing class must end its romance with the green lobby, whose evangelical zeal for punitive energy regulations – from stopping pipelines to shuttering power plants – and its indifference to the welfare of working Americans, are incompatible with the economic growth and high-wage jobs voters want.

The Sierra Club can’t read election results, but here’s betting that Congress can.

12.07.16 - ACCCE Statement on Trump Nomination for EPA Admin

ACCCE Statement on Trump Nomination for EPA Administrator

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Following the announcement that Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt will be nominated to lead the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity issued the following statement:

"We are pleased with President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt for EPA Administrator. General Pruitt will be a strong advocate for sensible policies that are good for our environment, as well as mindful of the need for affordable and reliable electricity."

Paul Bailey

Senior Vice President for Policy of the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is a partnership of the industries involved in producing electricity from coal. Coal, an abundant and affordable American energy resource, provides nearly 35 percent of our power. By 2018, the coal-based power industry is expected to have invested more than $126 billion to reduce emissions and to use this critical resource more cleanly and efficiently than ever before.

10.12.16 - CAP Report on Coal Leasing Recycles Garbage

CAP Report on Coal Leasing Recycles Garbage With its most recent screed against the federal coal leasing program, the Center for American Progress (CAP) continues to squander what little remains of its reputation for objective, credible policy analysis. Instead, this report recycles politically contrived conclusions based on a deeply flawed understanding of a program that in the past decade returned more than $12 billion to U.S. taxpayers.

Proposing to base federal coal production on the value of “a pool of carbon credits” that would arbitrarily change every five years would simply end long-term investment in federal coal production, the nation’s largest source of affordable coal energy used for electricity generation. It would also end the good jobs that federal coal production provides to thousands of Americans in the coal supply chain and the local revenue that helps states pay for schools, roads, health care and other necessities.

The environmental benefits CAP claims for this proposal are as negligible as the analysis it rests upon. It would lead to no measurable reduction in greenhouse gas concentrations, let alone in global climate change. If EPA’s Clean Power Plan aimed at shutting down the nationwide coal fleet yields a climate change benefit so small it is virtually unmeasurable, how much more insignificant would be the be the climate benefit of keeping federal coal in the ground?

When they’re not arguing that federal coal should be kept in the ground to protect the environment, activists complain that federal coal should generate more revenue to taxpayers. Aside from the explicit contradiction here – keeping coal “in the ground” for alleged environmental benefits denies taxpayers any revenue – CAP’s argument that taxpayers are somehow denied a fair return from the current federal coal program falls flat. The 12.5 percent royalty paid on coal from federal land is approximately 40 percent higher than rates paid for coal mined on private land in the Midwest and Appalachia. Companies pay additional fees based on the coal under lease.

With this report, CAP again demonstrates its obedience to the political agenda of environmental activists, not its respect for responsible public policies that recognize the economic needs of ordinary Americans.

09.22.16 - 10 Things EPA Doesn’t Want You to Know About The CPP

1. It’s unlawful – Sec. 111 (d) of the Clean Air Act doesn’t give EPA the authority to transform a state’s energy grid at the whim of Washington regulators. EPA is ignoring 45 years of interpretation that has limited its authority to regulating discrete sources within a fence line. It now claims power to regulate a significant portion of the U.S. economy.

2. It’s costly for the country – EPA ignores estimates of $64 billion needed for building out transmission infrastructure to replace power generation lost from the rule – power that could serve 24 million homes. The CPP will raise wholesale electricity prices by $214 billion, forcing typical annual household electricity bills a third higher by 2020 than they were in 2012.

6. It will harm low-income families – Low income households and those on fixed incomes have less income for non-discretionary spending. About half of all households spend one fifth of their disposable income on energy – two to three times more than families with above median income.

8. It will weaken energy diversity – EIA estimates the CPP will force retirement of another 56 coal-based power plants, increasing the risk of higher consumer costs by eliminating the restraining influence from competing sources of power generation that currently saves Americans an estimated $93 billion a year in electricity costs.

9. It encroaches on state sovereignty – States enjoy “traditional authority over the need for additional generating capacity, the type of generating facilities to be licensed, land use, ratemaking, and the like.” Pac Gas and Elec. Co. v State Energy Res. Conservation and Dev. Comm’n.

10. It contradicts what voters want – A recent poll conducted by Morning Consult for NMA reveals that voters’ single biggest concern with energy is “cost” while also signaling a strong preference for keeping coal in the U.S. energy mix. The CPP, however, will raise costs and force affordable reliable coal-generated power off the grid.

09.22.16 - Mining Communities Provide the Backdrop for Presidental Debates, and a Window into What's at Stake for many Americans in the Election

September 22, 2016

Mining Communities Provide the Backdrop for Presidental Debates, and a Window into What's at Stake for many Americans in the Election

________________________________

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The American mining industry will be the backdrop in three of the four states where the presidential candidates debate. In Virginia, Missouri and Nevada, the candidates will be surrounded by communities that rely heavily on mining for reliable, low-cost energy; high-paying jobs; and important state revenues. Those communities are on the front lines of many others that will be significantly impacted by the policies of the next administration.

Energy

Seventy percent of voters have said candidates’ positions on energy policy will be important to their vote this fall, and both presidential candidates have spoken boldly about their very different perspectives on the coal industry and its place in America’s energy future. At the same time, nearly seven in 10 voters support an “all of the above” energy strategy that includes coal ( Morning Consult poll conducted for NMA, August 3-5, 2016).

Over the last eight years, policies such as the Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics rule have worked to take coal-powered electricity off the energy grid. Pending regulations—e.g. the Clean Power Plan; a multi-year moratorium on federal coal leases; and the Stream Protection Rule—will continue this trend. As that coal-powered energy disappears, it takes with it a key source of affordable, reliable energy for Americans; important state and federal tax revenues; and related high-paying jobs.

The next administration has an opportunity to take a more balanced approach to energy policy. This will be especially helpful to debate states like Virginia and Missouri, where coal is important to their economies and communities, as it is elsewhere across America.

Oct. 4, 2016, Vice Presidential Debate, Farmville, Va.

• Key to Virginia’s economy:

* Virginia is the number one coal exporting customs district in the U.S., exporting 26.2 million tons of coal in 2015.

* Virginia’s average annual coal mining wage of $73,900 is 31 percent above the state average wage of $56,600.

* Because of Virginia’s use of coal for power generation, its retail electricity price is 9.31 cents/kWh – 11 percent below the national average.

Oct. 9, 2016, Second Presidential Debate, St. Louis, Mo.

• Key to Missouri’s economy:

* Missouri’s average annual mining wage of $68,000 is nearly 50 percent above the state average of $46,000.

* Mining in Missouri supports 33,380 jobs in total (including direct, indirect and induced), supporting total labor income of $2 billion.

* Missouri mining companies paid $636 million in federal, state and local taxes (including direct, indirect and induced).

• Providing reliable, affordable electricity in Missouri:

* Coal generated 78 percent of Missouri’s electricity in 2015. Because of Missouri’s significant use of coal for power generation, its retail electricity price is 9.3 cents/kWh −11 percent below the national average.

The next administration has an opportunity to advance policies that will support the responsible development of domestic minerals resources, with Nevada as a leading example of communities that would benefit greatly from such action.

Oct. 19, 2016, Third Presidential Debate, Las Vegas, Nev.

• Key to Nevada’s economy:

* Nevada’s ranks first in U.S. nonfuel mineral production valued at $6.9 billion in 2015.

* Nevada’s average annual mining wage of $93,000 is more than twice the state average wage of $44,500.

Given the importance of affordable and reliable electricity made possible through coal mining, and our economy’s reliance on minerals and metals to build infrastructure and sustain high-wage employment, the debates should probe into whether candidates’ positions address the realities faced by working Americans.

Key questions the candidates should be asked:

• In the past, both Democratic and Republican administrations have supported an “all of the above” energy policy, which advocates for the balanced use of all energy resources available, including coal, natural gas, nuclear and renewables. Seventy percent of voters have said the candidates’ position on energy policy will be important to their vote this fall, with another seven in 10 voters supporting an “all of the above” energy strategy (Morning Consult poll conducted for NMA, August 3-5, 2016). What is your position on the “keep it in the ground” movement being championed by environmental groups demanding that the world’s fossil fuels be kept in the ground?

• Is this movement realistic given our current energy grid (5 percent of electricity generated by wind and solar)? What would such a transformation of our energy grid cost on the front end from an infrastructure perspective and on the back end in terms of electricity costs to consumers, and where will these funds come from?

• Nevada is a mineral rich state, yet current policies tie up the mining industry in red tape, with multiple federal agencies typically taking seven to 10 years to approve a new mining project that could provide well-paying jobs for hundreds. Where should the balance be between environmental oversight and efficient regulatory responsibility?

08.15.16 - New Video Separates Coal Facts From Fiction

ACCCE: New Video Separates Coal Facts From Fiction "The facts are undeniable - a world with coal is a much more pleasant and comfortable way of life than a world without."

WASHINGTON, D.C. - The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity released a new VIDEO today examining the facts and fiction of a world with and without coal-based electricity. The video is based on information derived from Coal Facts, a web page that utilizes data to highlight the important role reliable, affordable electricity plays in our everyday lives.

The facts are undeniable - a world with coal is a much more pleasant and comfortable way of life than a world without," said Laura Sheehan, ACCCE senior vice president of communications. "Coal's impact on affordable energy and reliable power cannot be understated. It ensures the lights come on when needed and keeps pocketbooks full for other expenses, all the while keeping America globally competitive."

Proposed policy courtesy of EPA's disastrous and illegal Power Plan creates a scenario in which, according to the video, electricity prices would rise, local communities would lose jobs, and our national economy would suffer.

On the other hand, the United States has enough coal reserves to last for the next 280 years, which would go a long way in supporting the more than 700,000 U.S.-based jobs that depend on coal's use. Additionally, states that use coal to generate electricity on average have lower electricity rates. According to the Coal Facts webpage, 22 states generate, on average, less than 8 percent of their electricity from coal but pay 24 percent more than the national average price of electricity. Conversely, 15 states generate, on average, nearly 70 percent of their electricity from coal but pay 13 percent less than the national average.

"The facts are clear as day," continued Sheehan. "Coal-based electricity directly correlates to strong jobs and a stronger U.S. economy. It would be foolish to turn our backs on our past and present for an uncertain future."

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is a partnership of the industries involved in producing electricity from coal. Coal, an abundant and affordable American energy resource, provides nearly 35 percent of our power. By 2018, the coal-based power industry is expected to have invested more than $126 billion to reduce emissions and to use this critical resource more cleanly and efficiently than ever before.

examining the importance of coal-fired electricity and coal in battleground states.

According to the paper, as of mid-July, there were as many as 17 states that are considered tossups or are leaning either Trump or Clinton. Of the 17 states, coal-fired electricity is important to at least 13. These states are Arizona (11 electoral votes), Colorado (9), Georgia (16), Indiana (11), Iowa (6), Michigan (16), Missouri (10), Nebraska (1), North Carolina (15), Ohio (18), Pennsylvania (20), Utah (6), and Wisconsin (10). Collectively, they represent 149 electoral votes, more than half the 270 votes necessary to be elected president.

"We want both candidates to understand the political importance of coal in this election," said ACCCE president and CEO Mike Duncan. "Each candidate needs to explain how they will ensure an affordable and reliable supply of electricity that is essential to creating jobs and sustaining our manufacturing base in the U.S."

Two hundred coal-fired electric generating units in the 13 battleground states have already shuttered operations with another 46 units expected to close their doors in the near future because of current EPA policies. Said Duncan, "If the next President adopts the wrong policies, the 370,000 jobs and $90 billion in economic activity coal-fired electricity supports in these states will be threatened."

Right now, coal is responsible for 48 percent of the electricity produced in these 13 states. The percentage of electricity from coal ranges from 30 percent in Pennsylvania to 78 percent in Missouri.

"Coal-fired power plants not only provide the dependable and reliable electricity our nation needs, but they support hundreds of thousands of families and their communities," continued Duncan. "It is imperative that Mr. Trump and Sec. Clinton work to protect these people and ensure we all have the affordable power needed to keep food on the table and the lights on."

The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity is a partnership of the industries involved in producing electricity from coal. Coal, an abundant and affordable American energy resource, provides nearly 35 percent of our power. By 2020, the coal-based power industry is expected to have invested more than $127 billion to reduce emissions and to use this critical resource more cleanly and efficiently than ever before.

06.20.16 -Coal Keeps the Lights On and American Households Running

As summer’s heat begins to roll across the country, American families are cranking up the air conditioning units and switching on fans to keep cool.

Yet, this annual ritual is getting more expensive every year. Since 2005, national average electricity prices have increased by 33 percent in current dollars – partially due to environmental regulations.

As a result, American families are spending an average of 17 percent of their income on energy<http://americancoalitionforcleancoalelectricity.cmail2.com/t/i-l-kljylly-btutkdtdt-r/>—with the poorest 25 million families spending 22 cents on every dollar – forcing many to make tough decisions on how to budget limited funds.

That’s why affordable energy options, like coal-based electricity, are a must in America’s energy portfolio. Coal-based power makes keeping the lights on more affordable when families count on it the most.

American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

1152 15th Street, NW

Suite 400

Washington DC, 20005

Fact of the Week (Emission Reductions)

Attached are four slides.

Slide #1 shows that the coal fleet has reduced SO2, NOx and particulate matter emissions by 91% per kilowatt-hour of electricity generated. This has been achieved by investing almost $130 billion in emission controls.

Slide #3 also pasted below).

Slide #2 shows CO2 reductions from the electric sector that total 2 billion tons since 2005.

Slide #4 provides references for the numbers in the first three slides. Please note that we encourage plagiarism.

(3) major CPP milestones. You might be interested to know that the 18 states and DC that are supporting the CPP have an overall average electricity price 40% higher than the average of the 27 states that are challenging the CPP.

“As Americans tune in to hear where the candidates stand on critical issues facing our country, we are hopeful that those few Republican candidates who have yet to take a position on Obama’s costly climate crusade will make their opposition clear.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In advance of the second Republican presidential debate, the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity issued a detailed overview of where the candidates stand on President Obama’s costly carbon plan.

“As Americans tune in to hear where the candidates stand on critical issues facing our country, we are hopeful that those few Republican candidates who have yet to take a position on Obama’s costly climate crusade will make their opposition clear ,” said Laura Sheehan, ACCCE senior vice president of communications. “Our country relies on affordable, reliable coal-based electricity not only to keep the lights on but to power our very way of life. If President Obama’s illegal power grab isn’t stopped, we risk our economic well-being and global standing.”

Last week, ACCCE released a memo and video revealing the striking similarities between the president’s carbon plan and the failed “cap and trade” plan Congress rejected in 2009. The equally flawed 2009 plan resulted in thirty-six of the president’s allies being “slaughtered” at the ballot box.

“Americans know the president’s carbon plan will hit their pocketbooks<http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/voters_are_skeptical_of_obama_s_latest_energy_plan> hard. Today’s presidential candidates need to make clear where they stand on this issue and reassure voters that unlike the president they will put their priorities ahead of their political goals,” Sheehan said.

To access the detailed overview of where the 2016 candidates for president stand on President Obama’s carbon plan click here.

09.11.15 - ACCCE Applauds Congressional Oversight of EPA

“Today’s expert witnesses will pull back the curtain and let some much needed sunshine in so members of congress and their constituents can begin to understand the consequences they will face if EPA’s plan isn’t stopped in its tracks.”

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity commends the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology’s Subcommittee on Environment for holding today’s hearing entitled “State Perspectives: How EPA’s Power Plan Will Shut Down Power Plants.” This critical hearing will reveal the breadth and scope of the dangerous consequences associated with the Environmental Protection Agency’s overreaching carbon plan.

“The president and EPA for too long have used misdirection and scare tactics to shroud the truth about the havoc states, consumers and businesses will face as a result of their politicized carbon agenda,” said Laura Sheehan, ACCCE senior vice president of communications. “Today’s expert witnesses will pull back the curtain and let some much needed sunshine in so members of congress and their constituents can begin to understand the consequences they will face if EPA’s plan isn’t stopped in its tracks.”

Dr. Bryan Shaw, Chairman of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, will discuss the devastating economic effects the regulations will have if the rule is forced upon states.

Dr. Craig Butler, Director of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, who is already helping to reduce Ohio’s carbon emissions by 47 percent from 2005 to 2016, will expose the legality and feasibility issues associated with the “seriously flawed” <http://docs.house.gov/meetings/IF/IF03/20150317/103073/HHRG-114-IF03-Wstate-ButlerC-20150317.pdf> plan. “Members of the subcommittee should be commended for helping to uncover what the Administration is all too eager to shrug off – people’s livelihoods and health, particularly those on low-and fixed incomes will be significantly impacted by a rule designed to gift the President with his political legacy. Congress and officials across the country must continue on this path holding EPA accountable for the hurt that its plan will surely inflict,” Sheehan said. ###

08.13.15 - American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity

For Immediate Release:

8.13.15

Silence from Environmental Special Interests on EPA Animas River Disaster “EPA’s mismanagement of the spill should cause outrage from their special interest allies. Instead EPA and their allies continue colluding behind closed doors to impose illegal regulations that will harm our economy and increase energy costs on every single American.”

Washington, D.C. — The American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity issued the following statement regarding the hypocrisy from environmental special interests on their lack of outrage over the Environmental Protection Agency’s Animas River disaster.

“EPA’s mismanagement of the spill should cause outrage from their special interest allies,” said Laura Sheehan, ACCCE’s senior vice president of communication. “Instead EPA and their allies continue colluding behind closed doors to impose illegal regulations that will harm our economy and increase energy costs on every single American. It’s unfortunate they are not calling for more oversight, answers to the mismanagement of the spill and the resignation of those responsible for this terrible disaster.”